In The Descent of Man, published in 1871, Darwin outlined the basic reasoning that still stands today concerning the races of mankind. Darwin pointed out that if we used the techniques that naturalists used to identify race in nonhuman species, we would conclude that there really were no races in anatomically modern humans. Over one hundred and forty years of research have demonstrated that Darwins reasoning was correct. . .

In my recent book, The Emperors New Clothes, I demonstrate that our social construction of race was contingent upon the assumption that significant biological variation between groups of human beings existed that could be used to identify and classify these same races. Scientists now know that this was a false proposition, both at the level of the physical features and of the genes that produce them. Yet most Americans still believe that there is some biological legitimacy to our socially constructed racial categories. However, our modern scientific understanding of human genetic diversity flies in the face of all of our social stereotypes.

Many of our present political and social problems are rooted in racial misconceptions. The tragedy of this is that virtually none of the people directly involved in addressing our political and social disparities fully comprehend how our racial confusion influences how we deal with the consequences of injustice. Racist ideology has always relied on the mistaken assumption that significant biologically based differences exist between various groups of humans. In particular, racist ideology has always assumed that social inequality resulted from the biological inequality of races. Thus they saw racial differences as determining an individuals morality, character, intelligence, athleticism, and sexuality, among other features. They also thought that these features were immutable and passed directly on to offspring. Seen in this way, society would never change, and injustice could never be eliminated from it, because nature itself had created fundamental genetic differences between the races. Most nineteenth-century Americans never doubted that both God and science declared the existence of race, and that there was a hierarchical relation among the races. According to this thinking, the European stood at the pinnacle of perfection, and all other races were to be measured against him. For this reason, they thought it legitimate to declare the African slave as chattel and to deprive the American Indians of their sovereignty.

We have come a long way since then. However, our change in thinking did not happen without tremendous struggle; the ideological battle against racism has now been fought across three centuries. Meanwhile, people continue to suffer and die as a consequence of racist policies. Still today the root cause of racism remains entrenched in the American consciousness. Many of us still believe that there are innate racial differences among people, reflected in their character and habits.

The core ideological principle that maintains racism is the mistaken belief that biological races really exist in the human species and that individual aspects of character and morality can be identified by ones racial ancestry. Ironically, race theory is a consequence of relatively modern historical developments. We do not find clearly articulated theories of racial hierarchy in the writings of the ancients. They recognized that human beings had some physical differences from one another and that they had formed different cultures, but they did not believe that any specific race of people was inherently better than any other. Even Western civilization did not immediately develop substantial ideological support for theories of race classification and racially based variation in character and temperament. Anthropologists in the eighteenth century did not uniformly agree on the superiority of Europeans; Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, considered the founder of anthropology, did not accept the idea that races could be hierarchically classified. Yet by the middle of the nineteenth century, schemes of racial hierarchy would become entrenched. The rise of racial ideology coincided with the rise of Darwinism (specifically, a misunderstanding of how Darwins observations applied to humans) and the development of social institutions that exploited human biological differences for profit. This meant that a persons West African ancestry could be used as the sole reason to reduce him to chattel slavery, and that a groups American Indian ancestry in itself provided sufficient reason for the partial extermination of their population and seizure of their land.

Development of Biology and Race Theory

Pre-Darwinian biology utilized the great chain of being and ranked man higher than all other earthly life forms. This scheme suggested that the supernatural creator was responsible for the hierarchy of life, including the varieties of human beings. Naturalists of this period sought to find objective measurements to validate their beliefs, and turned to activities such as the measuring of skull volumes and other metrics. Not surprisingly, their studies supported the notion of European superiority. Yet to fully understand what modern biologists mean when they talk about race requires reference to evolutionary theory.

Without realizing it, Charles Darwin solved the problem of race when he asked how new species arose in nature. The origin of species was the most important scientific problem of the mid-nineteenth century, equivalent to what the discovery of the structure of DNA or the publication of the human genome was for us in 2001. However, to understand the origin of species, one also had to understand the significance of biological varieties or races, which result from genetic adaptation to local conditions and from chance events in the history of a given species that might radically change its genetic composition. Darwin recognized that the formation of biological varieties or races was essential to the formation of new species. His genius was in appreciating the significance of biological variation within species and the relationship of this variation to how new species were formed. He identified natural selection as the chief mechanism responsible for the adaptation of species to their environments. He thought that natural selection would eventually create varieties sufficiently different in their features so that they would become new species.

After the publication of The Origin of Species (1859), Darwin was forced to address the nature of human races. The anthropological debates of the latter portion of the nineteenth century had still not yet clarified whether there was one species of modern humans, or whether the races should be considered separate species. In The Descent of Man, published in 1871, Darwin outlined the basic reasoning that still stands today concerning the races of mankind. Darwin pointed out that if we used the techniques that naturalists used to identify race in nonhuman species, we would conclude that there really were no races in anatomically modern humans. Over one hundred and forty years of research have demonstrated that Darwins reasoning was correct.

Today the concept of geographical race is a cornerstone of evolutionary theory. Geographical races or subspecies have significant amounts of gene frequency differences form other such groups (usually on the order of about 20 percent). These differences result from natural selection for localized conditions, unique population history events (such as random fluctuations in population size), and a secession of gene flow with other populations within the species. Geographical races are thus thought to be intermediate steps along the way to the formation of new species. It is because this concept has been so thoroughly investigated that we can say with so much certainty that no biological races exist in modern humans.

Basic Definitions of Race

If humans had biological races, there should be some non-trivial underlying hereditary features shared by a group of people and not present in other groups, or possibly average differences that could be made sense of in some statistical way. Biology has developed relatively precise tools with which to examine whether the hereditary characteristics of populations can be classified into geographical races. It is here that the Western socially defined concept of race and the biological concept of race diverge. When one attempts to examine any of the physical features that have been used to define human races in our history, the concept breaks down. Skin color, hair type, body stature, blood groups, disease prevalence: none of these unambiguously corresponds to the racial groups that we have socially constructed. Thus, the common person distinguishes what he or she perceives to be racial categories by observable physical traits. These physical traits do vary among geographical populations, although not in the ways most people believe. For example, Sri Lankans of the Indian subcontinent, Nigerians, and Australoids share a dark skin tone, but differ in hair type and genetic predisposition to various diseases. Further difficulty results from the fact that people commonly link directly observable physical variations with less directly observable variation in such attributes as intelligence, motivation, and morality.

Modern biology defines geographical races as equivalent to subspecies. Subspecies are units that are intermediate to legitimate species. The biological species concept relies on whether individuals in such groups cannot mate and form fertile offspring. Horses and donkeys are considered legitimate species; if they are mated, mules result, but these are sterile. Also, gorilla and chimpanzees are separate species; yet within gorillas, mountain and forest gorillas might be considered subspecies, or geographical races of gorillas. No such level of genetic variation exists within anatomically modern humans. There is more genetic variation within one tribe of wild chimpanzees than has been observed within all existing humans! (See P. Gagneux, C. Willis, and U. Gerloff, Mitochondrial Sequences Show Evolutionary Sequences of African Hominids, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96 [1999]: 5077-5082.)

Genes, Human Variation, and Race

Only a fraction of the genetic information contained in the human genome has ever had anything to do with creating geographic variation associated with what has been historically called race. The DNA molecule in organisms like humans is associated with a group of proteins called histones. Together these make up a structure called the chromosome. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, with one set inherited from the mother and the other from the father. Along the DNA chain we can identify specific points, called loci, that are responsible for providing the instructions for a given trait, such as eye color. Some loci, called monomorphic (or one form) loci, control traits that are so crucial for the organism's function that no alteration of the genetic code is allowed. Loci that can allow genetic variation, usually because their functions are not as constrained as monomorphic loci, are called polymorphic (many forms). Polymorphic loci are defined by the presence of at least one rare variant, called an allele, that can be found at a frequency greater than 1 percent. A good example of a polymorphic locus i the A, B, and O blood group antigens. Polymorphisms occur when natural selection against any particular allele is weak, thus allowing all of them to persist in populations at different frequences. We might find that a given allele is better under one set of conditions, yet others are favored if we change the conditions. For example, alleles that produce darker skin are slightly favored in the tropics, as opposed to alleles that produce lighter skin in the temperate zones. The dark skin in the tropics might give better protection against ultraviolet light (UV) damage in the skin, or against skin parasites, while lighter skin in temperate zones might help with the synthesis of vitamin D (a hormone). In such a case, as the intensity of sunlight changes, we would expect to find a continuous change in the frequency of the alleles associated with changes in skin color. That is precisely what we find when we examine alleles for vitamin D binding proteins from the tropics to the northern latitudes. However, the whole story of skin pigmentation isnt as simple as that. Human pigmentation is genetically complex, and we can only say with certainty that variation at only one locus, the melanocrotin-1 receptor (MC1-R), can be definitely associated with physiological variation in hair and skin color. The authors of a recent study sequenced that gene from one hundred twenty-one individuals from different geographical regions. DNA has four nitrogenous chemical bases called nucleotides: adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C). These bases are aligned in various orders and constitute the chemical message of the DNA molecule that directs the synthesis of messenger RNA, and eventually the protein. Gene sequencing is the process by which geneticists determine the nucleotide structure of the DNA within a specific region of the molecule. The different nucleotide sequences are the molecular basis for what we call alleles. The authors found that there were five alleles for the MC1-R gene. The original protein sequence was observed in all of the African individuals studied, but it was also found in the other world populations at lower frequences (See B. K. Rana et al., High Polymorphism at the Human Melanocortin 1 Receptor Locus, Genetics 151, no. 4 [April 1999]: 1547-57). We also know that skin color in sub-Saharan African populations is more variable than that found in any other of the worlds populations. This is also true of total genetic diversity and physical variables such as skull types ( see J. H. Relethford, human Skin Color Diversity is Highest in Sub-Saharan African Populations, Human Biology 72, no. 5 [October 2000]: 773-80).

These observations alone shed doubt on whether we can truly divide the human species into discrete racial groups.

Genetic Variation Within and Between Races

There are statistical ways to summarize the similarity between human populations with regard to overall allele frequency. For example at the histocompatibility antigen A(HLA-A) locus, African-, Asian-, and European-Americans are quite similar in their allele frequencies. The HLA loci are responsible for tissue recognition and play an important role in warding off disease. We can further investigate the frequencies of alleles at other loci, and we can also statistically determine what the genetic distances are between socially constructed racial groups. This has been accomplished for modern human beings, and we have learned that there is about 8.5 times more genetic variation within the classically defined racial groups as there is between them. Another way of stating this is that 85 percent of the genetic variation within modern humans occurs at the individual level, 5 percent occurs between populations found on the same continent, and 10 percent occurs between continents. This general rule can be violated in groups that were originally generated from small groups that were themselves genetically uniform, or for cultural reasons maintained marriages amongst themselves. However, this special case does not invalidate the general principle that the majority of genetic variation in human occurs between individuals, without regard to membership in a socially constructed race.

A particularly illustrative example of the fallacy of the race concept occurs when we compare socially defined human races to populations in other species that have been defined by biologists as geographical races or subspecies. The standard figure for identifying the existence of geographic races is usually about 20 percent total genetic distance between populations at polymorphic loci. This has been observed in various drosophila (fruit flies) species, but we dont see anywhere near that much geographical variation in modern humans. The estimates we have of the amount of variation between human populations varies between 3 and 7 percent at the polymorphic loci (see my book , The Emperors New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium [Rutgers University Press, 2001], 204). Again, because polymorphic loci only represent about 33 percent of the human genome, the total amount of genetic distance we observe in humans is between (0.03 x .33 = 0.0099) and (0.07 x 0.33 = 0.023). This value is ten times below the 0.20 (20 percent) figure. It is apparent that different standards of biological reasoning would have to be used to make the argument for the existence of enough genetic distance in modern humans to support the existence of biological races.

. . . . snip . . .

Practical Implications of the Race Fallacy

In my recent book, The Emperors New Clothes, I demonstrate that our social construction of race was contingent upon the assumption that significant biological variation between groups of human beings existed that could be used to identify and classify these same races. Scientists now know that this was a false proposition, both at the level of the physical features and of the genes that produce them. Yet most Americans still believe that there is some biological legitimacy to our socially constructed racial categories. However, our modern scientific understanding of human genetic diversity flies in the face of all of our social stereotypes. Thus, if we cannot apportion humans into the socially constructed groups of American society, how can there be a genetic basis to the physical and behavioral features that have been ascribed to these mythological groups? In reality, the differences between groups we have been describing as resulting form biological race are really the result of cultural evolution. The rules that govern cultural evolution are dictated by the views of the eighteenth-century biologist Jean Baptist Lamarck, not those of Darwin. That is, cultural evolution occurs by the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and cultures change far more rapidly than genetic material. Thus, the social construction of race was a feature of our recent cultural evolution. Our reliance on racial thinking can just as easily be deconstructed.

To begin the deconstruction of racism, we must ask ourselves what role racist ideology plays in modern society. First, it provides a moral justification for maintaining a society that routinely deprives various groups of its rights and privileges. Racist beliefs discourage subordinate people from attempting to question their lowly status; to do so is to question the very foundations of the society. In addition, racism focuses social uncertainty on a specific threat, thus justifying existing practices and serving as a rallying point for social movements. Finally, racist myths encourage support for the existing order. Thus it is argued that if there were any major societal change, the subordinate group would suffer even greater poverty and the dominant group would suffer lower living standards. History demonstrates that racial ideology increases when a value system is under attack.

---snip---

Joseph L. Graves Jr. professor of evolutionary biology at Arizona State University West, a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the author of The Emperors New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium (Rutgers University Press, 2001).

Those IQ tests floating around FR last fall didn't seem to have any cultural bias like the ACT or SAT or LSAT or GMAT or GRE etc. They were more about arithmetic and discerning differences in patterns whether visual or written word.

Let's put the same hypothesis to work to explain the surprising lack of genetic vatriation between humans and apes.

There is also the same difference between chimps and mice. Which means that genetic variation does not prove very much. One of the discoveries of the genome project was that some 95% of DNA is not part of a gene. These comparisons were made only with respect to genes, not with respect to the rest of the DNA so they are but a small part of what makes an organism. We have known for a while that the DNA which was not in genes played an important role in development of an organism, however we did not realize how large a part of the genome it was. So it seems that evolutionists have been proven wrong again by real scientists. They should be used to it by now.

No. The absense of biological differences sufficient to distinguish two completely distinct and separate races does not imply the absense of statistically significant biological differences and does not imply that any such discernable differences are essentially cultural.

There clearly are racial differences, as groups, that are genetic, and not just cosmetic ones. Individually, it's one person at a time.

But myself and several others have already said that, six ways from Sunday. So I guess I should start using as an example the lower reading comprehension level of the politically correct crowd.

On blacks having up to 20% higher testosterone levels in college: I wonder how many of this pool of blacks are in college due to the soul...er..sole fact that they were recruited into sports? This might prove a sociological difference and possibly not a genetic difference. Also...did anyone read the Bell Curve? It was very fascinating. But, in the end, we are all made in the image of God regardless of whether this issue comes down to socialization, environment, genetics or some combo.

Here is a strange question: If blacks have higher testosterone levels (10-20% higher) and blacks committ over 50% of the violent crimes...and higher testosterone is linked to higher propensities to crime...should they be punished less? These statisitcs are fascinating, if they are correct...but what implications can we draw for society from them? And what is the solution to "racial inequities" and "racial inequalities" if these inequalities are rooted in biology and not oppressive power structures?

Intentionally overstating, as if sometimes slight differences were black and white:

White men can't jump (trust me on this one, I know).

I'd sooner have a Turk than a Frenchman beside me in battle.

West African for sprints, East African for marathons.

I'd sooner eat at a French restaurant than a Turkisk restaurant, and either beats British.

These are all group distinctions. I'd sooner have a black than a white for my basketball team, right until the moment that Larry Bird and Clarence Thomas show up, then its sorry, Clarence, back to the Supreme Court you go (and thank God you're there).

My presumption is that in all manner of human endeavors, there are measurable differences, by race, age, gender, and just about any other classification. None of which does me any good when I'm hiring -- then it's the best person for the position in question, of what ever stripe. Group statistical differences are useless in sorting out job candidates, unless perhaps one has to deal in bulk with thousands or millions at a time (as applies in the case of our airport screeners, not that the liberal powers that be would admit it). The P.C. crowd makes it rough on people who point this out. It makes it difficult for people to even be honest with themselves on this subject.

An essential part of the liberal ideology is that we all deserve the same result, that differences in outcome are signs of social, cultural, racial or economic bias that should be corrected, and that we can build heaven on earth. We're not all equal. We're different, however you slice us. I can code better, sing worse, and play worse basketball than perhaps anyone on this thread. And short of my forgetting how to code (program computers) there ain't a damn thing anyone here can do about any of this. There is a higher authority -- it is our destiny and responsibility to each live our lives as best we can. Saying that manifest differences in outcome (more of this race is succeeding in some way than another) are due to cultural bias is a dangerous sign of the prejudice of reduced expectations, and an invitation to more federal and world centralization of power to correct such errors of human planning. Only the tyrants of the world benefit from such excessive centralization of power.

God grants us equality of opportunity, to reach for our own best, to strive to understand and act in harmony with the order of the universe. The only equality of outcome is lowest common denominator for all -- which puts us all in prison or the gas chamber last I looked.

If you're referring to a twin study that claims that 50% of the identical twins who are themselves homosexual, have a homosexual twin, there are some serious problems with that study. The first is that the sample population was self-selected by responding to adds in the back of homosexual publications.

Other less-skewed twin studies have given numbers between 10% and 20%.

But there's a problem even calling those 10% to 20% evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality... because the nature vs. nurture debate is a false dilemma. There is a third possibility...

Pre-natal.

Numerous factors can affect pre-natal development. One particulary vulnerable phase occurs when that XY chromosome kicks in the hormones and turns an externally female fetus into the male it was genetically destined to be.

What if pre-natal conditions are somehow less than optimal during that hormone surge? What is the impact on the later sexual preference of that fetus?

We don't really know, but we know that identical twins share an identical pre-natal environment.

Basically, what the twin studies of homosexuals indicates is that the cause is most likely not genetic. Here's why...

Eye color is genetic. 100% of the identical twins with blue eyes have a blue eyed twin. But when twin studies of homosexuality give an identical correlation of 10% or 20% (heck, even 50%), then we know for a fact that homosexuality isn't genetic in 50% to 90% of the cases. The bottom line is that nurture and pre-natal probably account for the bulk of the rest.

After all, wouldn't a "gay gene" have a hard time perpetuating itself?

Hard to escape the fact that homosexuals are absolutely always procreated heterosexually.

Whether or not we ever find a causal relationship between two traits is irrelevant and unimportant. It may be a limitation of our knowledge which time may or may not resolve.

But we don't need to wait. If we see with our own eyes that two traits almost always appear together, why isn't that sufficient proof that the two are related? And thus make a strong statistical inference that with A I almost always get B?

Denying the existence of races in human is comparable to denying the existence of breeds in dogs - as well as their differences.

Are Jews supposed to be a racial group or a religion? Why would Jews from Eastern Europre than those from Western Europe. Are they different races? In fact, how many races are there- if racial differences are clear cut, then this question should be easy.

When you have

an identifiable group of people,

who have interbred for many generations with each other but mostly not with people outside the group,

and the members of the group have been subjected to a particular common environment

Then you would have a group of people who would be accumulating characteristics that tended to support survival in their particular environment. After a while, the set of evolved characteristics would define a "race"

For Eastern European Jews, a common factor was that their occupations were limited to things like merchant, tradesman, and money-lender -- all of which have people surviving better if they are intelligent, with strength and speed being not that relevant.

Life in sub-Saharan Africa was such that hunting large critters paid a big part of it, and defending against hostile critters and other tribes was another big factor. Athletic ability, combined with an ability to remain aware of your buddies' position in the hunt/fight, combined with an ability to make quick decisions in a rapidly moving and chaotic situation were big survival factors. These characteristics also come in very handy in sports like basketball and football.

To the extent it is and can be politicized, the absence of objective consistent biological definition of race does not coinicide with the liberal worldview. Liberal thought places categorization, including race as a number one, of people as important and essential.

You boys are very very mixed up as to what conservatism is and unaware of how you share the liberal worldview with all the victims and Jesse Jacksons and social engineers etc...

If blacks have higher testosterone levels (10-20% higher) and blacks committ (sic) over 50% of the violent crimes...and higher testosterone is linked to higher propensities to crime...should they be punished less?

No. If you do the crime, you do the time. No exceptions. Get the criminals off the street. The three strikes approach has been exceptionally effective in reducing crime by removing the repeat offenders from the streets.

Ok ..I'm bothering you again. You offered statements with no data or backup. I have a link below from Rushton who is arguably the leader(amongst Anthropologists) of the non-politically correct view that there are biological differences between races and even amongst sub groups within particular races. He and Graves go at it regularly. Anyone may indeed make up their own mind as it suits them. There is as well a plethora of work out there from Graves point of view reducing biological differences down to phenotypes and "biocultural" and beyond. Conclusions one wishes to make from such studies or data is the real issue isn't it, rather than the data itself? I am only opining from my layman's observations that there are indeed differences.

The most charitable interpretation is that there's some genetic marker for skin pigmentation that is also responsible for one being fleet footed. Ie, the skin pigmentation the running ability have a common genetic cause. A genetic vindication of a folk theory of race would find those common causes. But when we look, they're not there.

If you'll pardon me, you seem to display a rather limited understanding of genetic inheritance and statistical analysis. Mebbe, instead requiring that skin tone and athleticism be being gentically linked, we merely hypothesize that they are correlated.

There is certainly a significant amount of evidence for such, as reported here. People of east African descent dominate endurance running. People of west African descent dominate the sprints. (By memory, of the 300 fastest sprinters in the world, 297 are of west African descent.)

Anybody can go to Google and simply type in "biological differences between Races". One could spend months examining all the hits. Everything from extremely PC perspectives to Neo-Nazi eugenics. Like most issues, the "truth" is somewhere in the middle. The real issue gets started when one goes beyond using racial classification to describe physical characteristics. There are trends to be sure with everyone getting some pros and cons. There is no super-race. I am only interested in the truth and I rely mostly on a lot of observation from around the world.

The canard that human genetic studies show that we all share a 99% identical genetic pattern is exactly that...a canard in my view. We also share a 98% identical genetic pattern with chimps. That 1 percent between us and chimps obviously accounts for some serious differences. If so, then why would not the same 1% variations between human race and even amongst the sub groups of said races also account for some undeniable differences? We are 90% identical genetically with mice as well? LOL....now that's a 10% diference I'm glad we were granted.

I'm assuming you meant BFD...and yes you are right....except many folks are denying the existence of biological differences between races and racial sub groups because it doesn't fit their ideology. I am only interested in the truth that there are differences. Aside from physical differences, I believe most negative behavior patterns are cultural. Of course then one will invariably ask as William Tell did last night: Isn't culture a product to some degree of race in addition to many many other factors?

You have offered no links to anything. Why don't you attempt to join in with some data or backup? It would be much more enjoyable for all of us if you could do more than simply deny or sling personal attacks. Give us something with which to discuss. You claim there are no biological differences between races. I disagree. Show me something.

Liberal thought places categorization, including race as a number one, of people as important and essential.

Both liberal and conservative thought must deal with the self evident differences amongst peoples. The key difference is the conclusion they reach, whether or not it justifies centrally mandated and enforced homogenization of outcomes.

Liberal thought blames social, cultural and economic inequities for causing these categorizations, which is exactly what Graves is doing. Then liberals can justify more centralized power to address these inequities. In their view, these inequities (and other calamities, such as global warming) are man made, and we (the collective we, really meaning them, the would be tyrants) should fix them. The collective improperly assumes the role of God. Hubris.

Conservative thought recognizes that there are God given or natural categorizations and differences. It is fitting and proper that there will be a wide variety of outcomes, depending on our individual capabilities, energy, resolve, genetics, upbringing, situation and a bit of luck. We each individually have the responsibility to be the best we can be. Central government has a limited role to provide for the common defense and provide a fair legal and economic framework. Fairness not measured by equal outcomes, but by equal opportunity, within practical limits. A moral authority beyond our understanding, or at least beyond our power to manipulate, determines the outcomes.

After all, wouldn't a "gay gene" have a hard time perpetuating itself?

A combination of one or two "gay genes" could very easily define a predisposition towards homosexuality. It would then be possible to define a person not as gay or straight but as relatively gayer or straighter than the population. People on either extreme would hard-pressed to choose the opposite of their natural inclination. People closer towards the middle would be more fluid in their attractions and choice of partners.

There are straights with one or two past homosexual experiences who go on to marry and raise a family. These might be people who are mostly straight, but near enough to the boundry that a cross-over isn't unthinkable.

Conversly there are individuals gay of center who try to follow conventional norms, marry, and have a family only to later realize that they are morbidly unhappy in a hetero lifestyle.

Hard to escape the fact that homosexuals are absolutely always procreated heterosexually.

Not really; it's basic genetics. Remember high school biology class? There are two allels for every gene. If there is a gay gene, and if it is recessive (a reasonable assumption), you will never be able to "breed it out of existence" because a person with the Gay/Straight combination will be indistinguishable from a Straight/Straight individual, but will be a "carrier" for homosexual tendencies.

Disclaimer: All of the above is conjecture and hypothesis on my part, but it does seem to fit the annecdotal facts and observations.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.